DISSOLUTION AND PROROGATION (Hansard, 3 July 1973)

§ Mr. Whitelaw
I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 20, line 3, after 'Majesty', insert: ', after taking into account any vote or resolution of the Assembly which appears to Her Majesty to be relevant'. It may be for the convenience of the House if we discuss with it Government Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18, because they make the same point.
In Committee many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) argued that the provisions on possible dissolution and prorogation of the Assembly were not satisfactory in that they did not take into account the views of, first, the Assembly 352 itself and, secondly, this House. The amendments seek to meet those points.
The effect of the amendments is twofold. First, before Her Majesty makes any Order in Council proroguing or dissolving the Assembly she must take into account any vote or resolution of the Assembly which appears to Her Majesty to be relevant. She is required to take that into account in every case. However, she is not required to seek from the Assembly its views on the question of prorogation or dissolution. In appropriate circumstances it might be right actively to seek the views of the Assembly, but it would be wrong in principle for the clause to bind Her Majesty to seek those views where they had not been offered voluntarily. However, she is obliged to take them into account if they are offered voluntarily.
The second effect of the amendments is that any order dissolving the Assembly, proroguing the Assembly for more than four months, extending any existing prorogation, or prescribing the date of any new election may be made only if it has first been approved in draft by both Houses of Parliament. In short, any order made under the authority of the clause is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, except, as is made clear, an order proroguing the Assembly for a period of up to four months and not extending any previous period of prorogation.
I hope that the House will feel that the amendments do what I undertook in Committee to achieve. First, the House would certainly be involved through the affirmative resolution procedure. Secondly, the Assembly would be involved, in that Her Majesty had to take into account any vote or resolution of the Assembly which appears to Her Majesty to be relevant".

§ Captain Orr
Does the dissolution of the Assembly require an order in this House?

§ Mr. Whitelaw
That certainly is so.
We are protecting the position of the House with regard to dissolution and prorogation which we thought it should have and which the Bill in its original form did not give. Therefore, I move the amendments trusting that they meet the commitments made in Committee.

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees
The Secretary of State is right to say that the amendments are designed to meet the wishes expressed by a number of hon. Members about the complicated matter of dissolution and so on, which is normally not spelled out. Our practice has grown up over the years by convention, and it is not the easiest thing to put in legislative form.
I welcome the amendments, and have only one question. Subsection (5), as amended, will read If it appears to Her Majesty that the composition of the Assembly is such that it is not possible for the Secretary of State to make appointments under section 8 above which comply with the requirements of subsection (4) of that section and that it is in the public interest that the Assembly should be dissolved, Her Majesty, after taking into account any vote or resolution of the Assembly which appears to Her Majesty to be relevant …". I was going to say that that is extremely vague wording, but perhaps "flexible" is the word we arc using. There is probably very good reason for it. The Assembly has not yet drawn up its rules and regulations, or whatever they will be called, and I admit that the position is extremely difficult.
In view of that background, as we do not know the circumstances and the general subjects that the Assembly will be discussing, it would be helpful if the Secretary of State could give us an idea of what is meant by which appears to Her Majesty to be relevant". I presume, for example, that if there were an adverse vote on some subjects it would not matter very much to the working of the Assembly, but on others it would be far more important.
I can see the need for flexibility in the whole matter, but from this side of the House we welcome the provision. I can see no other way in which this could be worded to make it more explicit, but if it were possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give us some idea of the circumstance in which Her Majesty would have to make a judgment via the Secretary of State that would be helpful.

§ Captain Orr
I, too, think that there are certain difficulties here. I should have preferred a system under which powers were devolved to something that was 354 more like a parliamentary assembly, to an executive form of government that was more like our parliamentary system. I should have preferred the old system of the Royal Prerogative with regard to prorogation and dissolution. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has gone some way towards reducing his own arbitrary powers in the matter, and in that sense we are grateful to him for tabling these amendments. There will at least be some guidelines.
I take it that the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) about what Her Majesty might consider relevant is, for example, a vote of no confidence in the Executive passed by the Assembly. Such a vote would make the working of the Executive impossible. It would make it impossible for the Executive to get any of its measures through the Assembly. That would seem to me—and if Her Majesty thinks along the same lines as everybody else she will no doubt agree—to be a highly relevant consideration. A motion by the Assembly to dissolve or prorogue itself would be a highly relevant consideration.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend has done. It reduces the arbitrary power of the Secretary of State, and it sets out the broad guidelines. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having met the wishes of the Committee.

§ Mr. Whitelaw
When an hon. Member answers a question put to a Minister, it is wrong for that Minister to repeat the answer. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has given the answer which after a certain amount of discussion I should have been able to give. My hon. and gallant Friend gave it without any discussion or advice. Having received the necessary advice. I should have given the same answer, and on that basis I hope that the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) will be satisfied.